<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Dear Wolf and Albrecht.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Please forgive me if I am wrong, and you are both really communicating deeply, but
I do not think the two of you are really communicating at all on any meaningful level.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Albrecht, you do not seem to get what Wolf is talking about at all, and keep trying
to draw him back to the limited grounds of SR, which is quite irrelevant to most of what he is trying to say. On another forum his approach would be taken to be the majority view.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Wolf, you should not be trying to go onto the grounds of the argument with SR as
this is not what you are about. You are going to lose on those grounds as SR is perfectly self-consistent and does describe the physics of synchrotrons perfectly. Albrecht is right: otherwise they would not work. This is not to say that SR is in any way the
whole story. It is not, as is being discussed in some of the other threads.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">This whole back and forth has become a prime example of both of you making up what
you think the other is talking about and then arguing with that instead of conducting a proper discussion with each other. You are both arguing, effectively, with yourself. This is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, as one or both of you may come to the
realisation that you have something to learn and that is always a good thing. It has become pretty tiring for an outside observer though.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Regards, John.</span><span style="color:blue" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF490351" style="direction: ltr;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Wolfgang Baer [wolf@nascentinc.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<p>Answers interleaved<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/23/2017 12:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Wolf:</p>
<p>Please stay at the topic we are just discussing here. We should first come to a result with those before extending our topics.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.08.2017 um 08:47 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>I mentioned the Michelson Morley experiment because the URL I sent is an interesting alternative that gives a completely different answer which is probably wrong Watch
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc" target="_blank">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc</a></p>
</blockquote>
Yes, I have seen both videos. But I suspect, for the first one, that it is a property of his set up. If in the upright position the elements of the apparatus move only by a micrometer by gravity, then this effect is already understandable. Generally speaking,
the author did not present an error investigation; and that is essential for every experiment.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>However in general this experiment is extremely pertinent because the inability to detect ether drift is one of the main pillars of Einstein's approach and one of the main pillars of my consciousness theory of why why we should not detect the background
space which is attached and generated by us. I am working on my book fro ROutledge Press and would be happy to start sending you parts of it for comments on this observer oriented event theory.
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
But my question was about the measurement of the speed of light c. We should not jump but bring one question to an end before switching to philosophy or similar.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ok you measure the speed of light on earth by sending a pulse around the circumference of the synchrotron. It has a round trip distance of “X” you measure the time by a clock that is driven by the speed of electromagnetic influences. Lets
say it’s a light clock and the speed of light is Ce on earth and the clock round trip distance is “Y” so a clock cycle is Tc = Y/Ce, Now it takes N clock cycles for the light to travel around the synchrotron then<span style="">
</span>The speed of light is Cs = X/NTc = (X/NY)Ce </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But by measurement you can determine that X =NY so<span style="">
</span>Cs = Ce <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">so the speed of light is the speed of light her on earth , there is no question about that
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<p>You are very right I should learn more about synchrotrons but we re not discussing the standard text book approach and its assumptions so I am hoping you will meet me half way and tell my specifically why you think I'm wrong instead of generally asking me
to go look at a text book and hoping I would guess your objection. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
In the following you see the accelerating pieces of a <i>linear </i>accelerator. This is showing how the speed of a particle - like an electron - determines the switching frequency<br>
<br>
<img id="uid_0" src="cid:part2.666A49DF.5761E71C@nascentinc.com" class="_WCg" title="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearbeschleuniger" alt="Bildergebnis für linearbeschleuniger" height="301" width="408"><br>
In a synchrotron this is built in a circular way. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<p>Now you've started to be mores specific and I greatly appreciate that. The definition of momentum is
<span class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-14-Frame" tabindex="0" style="text-align:center; position:relative">
<nobr><span class="math" id="MathJax-Span-66" style="width:6.485em; display:inline-block"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:5.988em; height:0px; font-size:108%"><span style="position:absolute; top:-2.16em; left:0em"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-67"><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-68"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-69"><span class="munderover" id="MathJax-Span-70"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:0.556em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-71" style="font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">p</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.093em; left:0.114em"><span style="height:0em; vertical-align:0em; width:0.471em; display:inline-block; overflow:hidden"></span><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-72" style="font-family:MathJax_Main">
<span style="height:0em; vertical-align:0em; margin-left:-0.247em"></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; height:1px; width:0em"></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-73" style="font-family:MathJax_Main; padding-left:0.278em">=</span><span class="mstyle" id="MathJax-Span-74" style="padding-left:0.278em"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-75"><span class="mfrac" id="MathJax-Span-76"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:3.873em; height:0px; margin-right:0.12em; margin-left:0.12em"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.794em; left:50%; margin-left:-0.9em"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-77"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-78"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:1.309em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-79" style="font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">m</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-3.862em; left:0.878em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-80" style="font-size:70.7%; font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">p</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span><span class="texatom" id="MathJax-Span-81"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-82"><span class="munderover" id="MathJax-Span-83"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:0.491em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-84" style="font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">v</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.094em; left:0.049em"><span style="height:0em; vertical-align:0em; width:0.471em; display:inline-block; overflow:hidden"></span><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-85" style="font-family:MathJax_Main">
<span style="height:0em; vertical-align:0em; margin-left:-0.247em"></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; height:1px; width:0em"></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-2.866em; left:50%; margin-left:-1.876em"><span class="msqrt" id="MathJax-Span-86"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:3.753em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:1em"><span class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-87"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-88" style="font-family:MathJax_Main">1</span><span class="mo" id="MathJax-Span-89" style="font-family:MathJax_Main; padding-left:0.222em">−</span><span class="mfrac" id="MathJax-Span-90" style="padding-left:0.222em"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:0.766em; height:0px; margin-right:0.12em; margin-left:0.12em"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.446em; left:50%; margin-left:-0.323em"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-91"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:0.646em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-92" style="font-size:70.7%; font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">v</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.217em; left:0.343em"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-93" style="font-size:50%; font-family:MathJax_Main">2</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-3.549em; left:50%; margin-left:-0.305em"><span class="msubsup" id="MathJax-Span-94"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:0.609em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0em"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-95" style="font-size:70.7%; font-family:MathJax_Math; font-style:italic">c</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.217em; left:0.306em"><span class="mn" id="MathJax-Span-96" style="font-size:50%; font-family:MathJax_Main">2</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-1.269em; left:0em"><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; vertical-align:0em; border-top:1.3px
solid; width:0.766em; height:0px"></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:1.049em"></span></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.891em; left:1em"><span style="display:inline-block; position:relative; width:2.753em; height:0px"><span style="position:absolute; font-family:MathJax_Main; top:-4.012em; left:-0.084em">−<span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; font-family:MathJax_Main; top:-4.012em; left:2.059em">−<span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="font-family:MathJax_Main; position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0.433em">−<span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="font-family:MathJax_Main; position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:0.975em">−<span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="font-family:MathJax_Main; position:absolute; top:-4.012em; left:1.517em">−<span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-4.014em; left:0em"><span style="font-family:MathJax_Size2">√</span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:4.012em"></span></span><span style="position:absolute; top:-1.269em; left:0em"><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; vertical-align:0em; border-top:1.3px solid; width:3.873em; height:0px"></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:1.049em"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; width:0px; height:2.16em"></span></span></span><span style="display:inline-block; overflow:hidden; vertical-align:-2.005em; border-left:0px solid; width:0px; height:3.774em"></span></span></nobr></span></p>
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e">However the derivation of this equation is not at all straight forward since we are talking about three dimensions and the formula is different in the direction of motion vs the cross direction terms. In the circular orbit we are
talking about a momentum in te radial direction vs one in the angular direction and furthermore the particle is in an accelerated frame.
<br>
</span></p>
</blockquote>
The point is here that the momentum of the electron increases permanently, but the speed is limited to c. And as there is p = m*v , and at the end v = c, how can you explain the increase of p if assuming m to be constant?
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes , thank you I believe your diagram is helpful although it also leaves out a critical component of our discussion, Does the stay constant inside the particle and therefor give the appearance of a momentum increase or does it truely stay constant in all reference
frames and therefore the measured effects must be attributed elsewhere. <br>
Obviously for a parameter that is defined by two variables m*v there is not much choice. One measures v and any deviation must be attributed to the mass.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><span class="_Tgc _y9e"></span></p>
You are saying particles are accelerated to near the speed of light and easily measured, yes but this is a one way near speed of light measurement and one needs to examine this carefully.<span class="_Tgc _y9e">I've read in numerous places that the Large Hadron
Collider is capable of accelerating protons at 0.999999991 c,- At those speeds the circumference of "C" is the stationary distance and the time is the time statinary period tp measured at one point whenever the particle comes around. so its velocity is C/tp,
However the particle is stationary in its own reference frame and only feels a radial gravitational pull outward for which the factor under the integral depends upon the log of the radius</span><br>
</blockquote>
When we say that an object has a certain speed we mean the speed measured in our laboratory frame. For other frames (also the one of the particle itself) it has to be determined by the Lorentz transformation. But that is a different story than what we are discussing
here. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Well here we are taking about interactions between the mass of an electron and its charge. So I'm suggesting that the speed of Electromagentic interaction speeds up when the particle is in a higher state of Lagrangian energy when the potential of the distant
mass star ring is taken into account. this accounting is given by the equations I've sent you many times which you thing are just number games.
<br>
So I'm suggesting that internal activity for a mass-charge particle ( even a neutron is considered a combination of charged particles ) both absorbs energy and makes the particle appear to have a greater momentum and furthermore that it is the speed of light
change that give a simpler explanation than changing ether charge of mass values.<br>
<br>
Now you will say its all accounted for by the Lorenz transformations, but that is wrong. These transformations deal with charges and EM fields<br>
it is their connection with matter that Einstein introduced and that has turned classic mechanics on its end
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Furthermore we must talk about the momentum of a charged particle since presumably the momentum is measured by the curvature on a charge induced by a magnetic field.<br>
</blockquote>
That is one way. The other - which relates to the energy of a particle - is its conversion into other particles. So, an electron and a positron accelerated in a storage ring can collide and in this moment be converted into particles of a much higher mass (a
mass of more than 1000 times the mass of the electron). How is this possible if the electron does not change its mass (and the positron as well)?<br>
</blockquote>
I do not know if this is anything more than an energy conversion , i'm not questioning the energy increase mc = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub>*(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup> happens but whether it aplies to the mass or the speed of light
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
This it gets very complex and your recommendation to understand more is appropriate. However is the situation not similar to the central force problem of a particle moving in an atom where the gravitational and electric forces are balanced
<br>
</blockquote>
The gravitational force is completely irrelevant for the processes in an atom. I have many times given you numbers that for such influence the gravitational force is too low by more than 30 orders of magnitude. - Why do I write this again and again, and you
never react on it but repeat completely wrong numbers or assumption again and again?? So we cannot go on.<br>
</blockquote>
Well Albrecht please listen! No one questions that gravity is weak, but inertia is equivalent to the magnetic component of gravity , that is why I call it gravito-inertial and keep evoking Mach's principle. It is inertia that balances the coulomb force in Bohr's
atom model. It is inertia that is as strong as the electric force. I know you think you have an explanation for inertia from your rotating charge model, but I. Lorenz , Sciama , and many more feel a simpler and more elegant description of inertia has inertia
treated as the angular momentum pseudo vector. Leaving both mass and charge as constants.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
i will try to get you a calculation which shows that for an atom the assumption that charge and mass are at a point is no longer valid and in fact the two are separated. Thus the momentum of a particle is dependent upon the separation distance. this allows
me to calculate the momentum and energy of a particle from contant mass and force since the correction factors are used to explain an internal geometry to matter rather than a change in the value of mass.<br>
</blockquote>
So a particle without a charge does not have any momentum?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
please stand by<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please treat the questions we are discussing right now here. The rest please later.
<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/18/2017 8:18 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>why do you mention the Michelson Morley experiment? It was not the purpose of it to determine the speed of light. And it is in no way suitable to do this determination. It was designed to measure the ether drift.
<br>
</p>
<p>A particle accelerator is, on the other hand, a very good way to determine the behaviour of c. Because when the particle flies along the chain of acceleration sections, the fields of these sections have to be switched in a properly synchronized way so that
an acceleration can happen. Therefore the speed of the particle is very simple logic. At which point do you doubt this process?</p>
<p>If it is now visible that this speed has an upper bound (more is not necessary), but the momentum of the particle increases permanently, then the increase of mass is the only explanation. Or do you have another one? - The increase of momentum is easily measured
in a magnetic field.</p>
<p>From these facts together the increase of mass has to be concluded. I do not know any other explanation. Do you have one?</p>
<p>Your doubt of this is in my view a consequence of the fact that you have never looked into the design of a synchrotron. You should do that urgently before presenting unchained statements about relativistic facts.
<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 17.08.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>wel the first thin I would like to see is nano second pulses reproducing a michelson Morely type experiment
<br>
</p>
<p>But the simplest thing is to look at the theory of the synchroton design you keep talking about are you talking about the energy formula</p>
<p>m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font size="-1"> </font> that we both agree on. If so then we are only in disagreement about the interpretation and the assmptions inside tha<font size="-1">t
i</font>nterpretation<font size="-1">, observations like this E-mail in front of your nose are facts I do not dispute facts, I'm interested in
<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>by the way have you seen <br>
</p>
<div class="" style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font class="" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E" class="" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E</a><br>
<br>
The truth is hard to come by.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/16/2017 7:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>So, what is <i>your </i>way to measure the speed of light so that you trust the result?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.08.2017 um 07:56 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>You still do not grasp the idea that theory and therefore the assumption of theory determine the interpretation and therfore what we thing we are seeing.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2017 12:44 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Wolf: <br>
</p>
<p>it may be good to have new ideas or new insights, but please do not offer equations which are in clear conflict to safe experiments.
<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.08.2017 um 07:45 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>You said "Your equation Your equation m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font size="-1">
</font>is correct. It describes the increase of mass at motion. But your equation <font size="+1">
</font>c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) does not have any meaning for me. And I do not understand how you have deduced it. I have asked you the other day what this equation means in your
view, but you did not answer this.' <br>
</p>
<p>I thought I had answered many times. Lets assume we both agree on this equation m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) is correct.</p>
<p>Now how do you interpret it?</p>
<p>If you believe in Einsteins postulate that c is constant then you can logically divide c oyt of the equation and get m = m<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) which you believe has been proven in accelerator designs.</p>
<p>I on the other hand recognize that Einstein's postulate is precisely a postulate, an initial assumption that may or may not be correct.</p>
<p>We are both and all of us in this discussion group exploring the validity of initial assumptions. Therefor Allow me to assume Eistein's assumption is one way of developing a theory but not the only way. If we assume mass is the invariant instead of the speed
of light then the very same equation we both agree on could be written as m*c<sup>2</sup> = m*c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>). Now we can cancel the "m' and get c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
The operation of accelerators show every day and every second that the speed of particles has a limit at the speed of light c. And as on the other hand the energy (or momentum) of a particle in an accelerator is increased to above any limit, the mass of that
particles must increase. There is no other explanation, or do you have one?<br>
</blockquote>
The operation of acceloators show m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font size="-1"> which can be interpreted in two ways. I challenge you again to show me why your interpretation of c remaining
contant and m needs to increase is the right one?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<p>This may not have any meaning to you, but it that is the case you do not understand how a community of scientists could be so brain washed that they accept an assumption for gospel truth and do not want to understand circular reasoning which will always
prove the initial assumption is true.</p>
</blockquote>
Why do you not explain a physical process which is described by your equation above: "c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)" ?<br>
</blockquote>
I've explained this many times the speed of EM process in a particle or coordinate frame built of particle is dependent upon the total energy potential the particle experiences gravitational potentialis one of the components the particle is in. The speed of
light and all processes including clock rates slow down when the clock is in a lower gravity potential<br>
mc<sup>2 </sup>=~ m c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + 1/2 mv<sup>2</sup>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Now i know you are smart enough to understand this choice of initial assumptions.</p>
</blockquote>
Which initial assumptions do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
That the speed of light is constant. instead of being dependent on the energy potential it is in.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>An further more if we rewrite the equation we both agree on as m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub><sup>3/2</sup>*c<sup>3</sup> *(1/(mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)we would recognize the mc<sup>2</sup>-mv<sup>2</sup> in the corrective factor
as the negative classic Lagrangian when the potential energy of the a mass inside a universe mass shell is 1/2 mc<sup>2</sup>. This means mc<sup>2</sup> is the escape energy to get outside our Universe of mass surrounding us. In other words we live in a flat
space at the center od a ball of mass. Simple and consistent with intuition. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
This again assumes that the mass of an object is constant if put to motion. This is clearly falsified by safe experiments.<br>
</blockquote>
You keep saying clearly falsified but you do not show me the safe experiments I believe the experiments you refer to are based on this equation m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) and I keep saying
it can be interpreted in two ways <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<p>Now I ask you to show me experiments that cannot be explained with the assumptions leading to c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
My question again - not answered by you - is: which physical process is described by this equation in your view? For me it is just a collection of symbols without any message.<br>
</blockquote>
Ive again told you the physical process is to include the gravity potential of the distant stars Machs principle<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<p>since I or we have shown you arguments that Einsteins assumption is inconsistent with</p>
<p>1) gravity must be infinite or there would be a tangential component to increase our orbit</p>
</blockquote>
Which gravity, i.e. the gravity of which object is infinite in your view?<br>
</blockquote>
I meant the speed of gravity, this is also a problem with your rotating charges unless the interaction speed is infinite a tangential component will arise which makes the orbit unstable
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>2) the perihelion correction is based upon the calculation classic i.e. infinite speed of gravity calculations</p>
</blockquote>
To my understanding the perihelion shift is caused by the fact that the planet changes its mass during the orbit because the speed changes.<br>
</blockquote>
That again is an interpretation but the prehelion shift is calculated by assuming Newtons infinite gravity it again is false reasoning. You can explain the shift by making new assumptions, but if you apply those assumptions consistently you get a different
answer to the shift and one that is inconsistent wih Einsteins calculations. We sent out the paper on this i can dig it up and send itr again.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>3) Shapiro's speed of light calculation</p>
</blockquote>
Shapiro's result for the speed of light is in full agreement with Einstein and also in full agreement with my approach to gravity.<br>
</blockquote>
it proves the speed of light is dependent u[pon the gravito-inertial field the light is in and is not constant. So why are you so critical of my c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>4) Gravitational shielding during eclipses and anomalies in satellite orbits (not sure about this one)
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Where was gravitational shielding observed? And which anomalies in satellite orbits do you mean?<br>
</blockquote>
I cannot remember right now but maybe Candra sent some paper that mentioned the anomalies and gravity effects measured during an eclipse<br>
perhaps someone will remember the reference. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<p></p>
<br>
Einstein should have listened to Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
If Einstein would have listened to Mach he would have accepted the existence of a fixed frame of reference (this kind of an ether). I assume the same as Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
The why are you so critical? My on;y contribution is to realize that the fixed frame of reference is the perceptive space attached to each observer<br>
you must understand yourself in the picture or you have only half the truth.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
Best wishes ,<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
</blockquote>
Best wishes back<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/11/2017 4:24 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Your equation m*c<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>*c<sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)<font size="-1">
</font>is correct. It describes the increase of mass at motion. But your equation <font size="+1">
</font>c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) does not have any meaning for me. And I do not understand how you have deduced it. I have asked you the other day what this equation means in your
view, but you did not answer this. Because why should the speed of light change if something (what??) moves at some speed v?</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #D3D4DE">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px; padding-top:18px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width:46px; height:29px" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px; padding-top:17px; color:#41424e; font-size:13px; font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height:18px">
Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">
www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" height="1" width="1"></a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>